Ad hom Steve? Water off a ducks back as they say around them thar hills.

Insult and puny witless remarks – It’s all they’ve [the alarmists] got left, the argument and the scientific analysis proved beyond doubt – there is no way to differentiate and notate the signal of MM warming in the noise of natural forcings……………………… even if there was (there isn’t) any truth to the supposition (MMC02 causes warming) in the first place.

I have no such issues with higher (or lower) mathematics. Ga Tech trained me admirably for such contingencies.

I recently completed a study to see how accurate the heating-degree day figures were for my area. These are typically computed by the simple 65 – (high + low)/2 equation. It’s been bothering me for a long time that this relies upon temperatures being sinusoidal and evenly distributed about an average temp throughout the day. And I suspected they did no such thing.

So, I plotted the measured temps HOURLY and made a little discovery. At 45 degrees north latitude, the temps remained within 2 degrees of the reported low temp for approximately 9 hours. Conversely, the temps remained within 2 degrees F of the max daily reading for only 3 hours of the day. This imbalance throws the easy equation to hell for accuracy.

Bottom line, simple math computed a daily avg temp of 17.0 degrees F. A more careful study revealed a more accurate avg temp of 15.3 degrees F over the same time period.

Now, honestly, this is a little bitty thing. But, it does go to show that computational methods can lead to significant errors in reporting. In this instance, the computations themselves are off by about the same order of magnitude as the reported (warmist reports) increase in temps since the year 1900. I can’t imagine that the error in even modern thermometers could be much less than +/- 1 degree F. And then there’s the reader and transcription error to contend with. I’m sure if we plotted both of these lines on the only true temperature scale (Kelvin) – they’d be within the pencil line. And, of course that means much ado about nothing.

It also means we should never leave the math to the people who have a vested interest.

Sorry. PS. DrFurst’s comment.
I asked my 18 yr old son some time ago how he would find an average daily temp. He immediately, without prompting, introduced a time factor rather than high/low average.
He studies Geology at a warmist institution (Southampton). An older son, Chemistry,(strange name I know), laughed for 5 minutes at the simplicity of the Average global temp. calcs. The latter is too cluey to be caught by the question.

Also, for an example, here is statistical spatial analysis applied to the 2008 election:

For weather stations, they are NEVER evenly distributed based on geography, and they don’t always exist for the same time frame (for example some stations disappeared decades ago while others sprouted up). So you have to do some good legwork to actually determine temperatures over the US in the last 100 years – and you can’t just average stations up with basic arithmetic.

You see, not only in weather data do you have a geospatial issue, but you also have a chronological issue.

Even so, the US is only 2% of the surface of the Earth – and all global temperature data sets (even the most conservative ones) show warming over the past century. Even if the entire US dataset (adjusted and everything) is tossed, there would still be significant warming across the entire globe (including satellite records).

Counting record high and low temperatures has nothing to do with spatial analysis, and even if it did the HCN stations are fairly evenly spaced. The greater density is in the NE which has had the most warming – so any bias my method introduces would favor warming..

The raw data using my calculations is very similar to Hansen’s 1999 temperatures. You are raising bullshit straw man arguments.

“Counting record high and low temperatures has nothing to do with spatial analysis”

Which is why you or NOAA both shouldn’t use it to make a point. Duh. Also, the stations are not equally spaced – or equally chronological. That’s why they are adjusted.

“Fairly evenly” is not a number, and is not ‘equally spaced’.

If you’re so confident about your raw calculations, why not get them peer-reviewed? If they truly are accurate then you’d get some serious notoriety. Or is there some conspiracy preventing you from doing this? Or are you too busy worrying about Obama being from Kenya?

I am very concerned that Obama spent 20 years telling people that he is from Kenya, including his biography agent. Having a congenital liar in the White House indeed troubles me – as does your endless attempts to avoid dealing with the obvious problems with Hansen’s data manipulation.

And what else is in the NE? It is the most heavily developed area on the continent, easily subject to UHI. So what does Hansen do to compensate for UHI? He adjusts the temperatures upward! So using uncompensated raw data is very conservative if you happen to be looking for a global warming signal.

And Wallace, my reading of the satellite data fails to find your “significant warming across the entire globe.” Last I saw, global temperatures have been steady for the last 16 years, according to HADCRUT data.

Really? Playing the moral equivalency card Wallace. Yet, you can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that NOAA “using it” seriously impacts national/international policy, while Steven is “just having fun.” Duh indeed.

“Even if the entire US dataset (adjusted and everything) is tossed, there would still be significant warming across the entire globe (including satellite records).”

The above statement is simply untrue Wallace.

Per The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement; “Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.”
— TREND ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DATAhttp://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

In other words, even if the entire US dataset (adjusted and everthing) is tossed, there would NOT be significant warming across the entire globe (including satellite reords). Keep this unethical behavior up Wallace and we will have no other recourse than to report you to climate ethicist Peter Gleick.

Wrong. You should study statistics a bit. If you have a group of numbers and they are heavily congested around a particular area, then they will ‘weight’ the averages spatially. Imagine having 1 station in CO showing a +5C warming trend, then 100 stations in NYC showing a -1C trend. The average is really closer to 4C, not 6C / 101 stations.

I suppose I didn’t explain myself well. Adjusting for geographical coverage is highly problematical because a few kilometres away you’re in a town or city, or in a forest, or on a mountain, or next to the ocean. These attempts can corrupt data, not improve it. A good reality check is to see what the raw data is telling you, particularly over stations with long histories. If after your analysis you have a radically different picture, the problem is most likely in your analysis. Hansens’ adjustment regime is a bit of a joke. I’m surprised anyone takes what he does too seriously.

When Steven does the math, he only uses data from stations with a long term record (>100 years). He uses the raw data, not adjusted for UHI, time of day or anything else. It is indicative of a trend if the average of the stations existing over 100 years show cooling. It is indicative of a trend if the average of the stations existing over 100 years show warming. It is indicative of a trend if it shows neither warming or cooling.

Now, the drivel that can’t possibly show anything realistic or reasonable is the “adjusted” stuff put out by various entities (GISS etc.). They fill in areas that aren’t covered by weather stations by “homogenizing” the data. Well, that’s not valid. Get in your car, get it equipped with an exterior thermometer and take a drive. Go over hills, near water, through parks and down busy streets. Drive in rush hour in slow traffic, then on the open road. Drive in the sun and in cloud. Look occasionally at the temperature reading. Guess what, you can’t homogenize over 5 miles, much less hundreds of miles. You will realize this quickly if you do the simple test suggested above.

Then, GISS et al change the data for “time of day adjustments” for weather stations in metropolitan areas where the reading was done 2 weeks ago, 2 months ago, 2 years ago and 2 decades ago. Don’t they know there are standards that were followed by those stations? Well, actually, based on Anthony Watts et al’s paper, there are no standards. You can put an official weather station right beside a runway or an air conditioner or an air vent from a large building and call its readings valid. But, nevertheless, the bias in their adjustments is to assume that people prior to the year 2000 read their thermometers and then added to them, so we must adjust those temperature readings down. Then the people who read their thermometers after about 2006 subtracted from them, so we must adjust those temperature readings down. Especially in 2012, the average thermometer reader at government approved weather stations somehow wrote down the wrong temperature by an average of 3 degrees, and all of them understated the actual temperature. If you believe the adjustments, you are a fool. They are fraudulent.

Steven takes the raw data, unadjusted, and trends it. This is the most valid method out there. Hats off to him for having the courage to do something so simple and so truthful. And he is up front about his methodology, he doesn’t cloud it in a bunch of babble designed to confuse and obfuscate.

The truth will set you free. And the truth is that the world quit warming 15 years ago. It quit cooling 45 years ago. It quit warming 75 years ago. There is a 60 year oscillation in global temperatures, it is normal and measurable. But those who have something to gain from distorting the truth make bull sh!t arguments like yours.

Michael, I can walk down my street, turn left, walk up the road no more than 600 meters, and in doing so I increase my position relative to sea-level by approximately 30 feet (it is a slight hill), at this point I have observed a rise in temperature as much as 4F ! … Standing upon this slight hill, I am no more than 500 meters away from my house and yet the temperature is 4F different. Now Wallace, explain to me how I may “homogenize” that!

It is for science to prove any theory.
It is not for you – or anyone else – to have to prove otherwise, but you (and anyone qualified or not) can question the methods and assumptions made in attempting the proof. If there is good science behind a theory it will be defined as logical, factual, and explainable. Anything less and the theory is hokum.

Siting of stations is extremely important and NOAA has total control over that. NOAA also unilaterally decides what “adjustments” can be made to raw data. So basically, they have absolute power from the beginning to determine the outcome of the game.

It is also very important to recognize that NOAA has an extremely vested interest in the results. In addition, NOAA refuses to consult with those who question them, due to their high and mighty proclamation that the science is settled. Lastly, those same people control the purse strings for almost all so-called climate “research” that spins off their perdetermined results. Obviously, those who challenge their results have almost no chance to receive funding.

Talk about a system that begs for corruption! Not exactly set up to make an honest, objective determination

“complex mathematical operations like counting record highs and lows.”

Well, it is complex to the simpleminded. Steve you should probably start a new page with math instructions. If you start basic enough, then you could get some of the climate kooks up to speed with math principles.

I’ll help start. Little Johnny has one apple, Jane gives Johnny another apple. How many apples does Johnny now have?

I wouldn’t start at any higher math than that, or you’ll lose most of them on your first post.